The following is an editorial written by Linux Today reader
Paul Ferris.
I am often suspicious of printed magazines and their so-called
“unbiased” reviews. Mainly when the reviews are accompanied by
large ads purchased by the corporations whose products are the
focus of those reviews. But being suspicious is one thing. Having
your fears confirmed is another.
Take some time to review your favorite trade rag or magazine.
Being a typical computing professional who knows the ropes, it’s
hard not to notice one aspect of the printed press. It rarely has
anything critical to say about Microsoft. If something does appear,
it’s almost always an opinion piece by a rebel author. Nicholas
Petreley comes to mind. But go to the web, and take a look around,
and you will find a vastly different point of view. Actually, many
different points of view. Often valid points of view that are not
much, if at all, represented in mainstream press.
The trade rags lately seem to have very little to say about the
Microsoft Anti-Trust trial, or the very enormous stream of evidence
and foul-ups that have resulted. They almost seem to be holding
their breath. It makes you wonder if this is due to the enormous
weight that the company can wield in ad revenue, which is what
funds many of these “free” publications. Possibly faced with lost
ad revenue from Microsoft, and any company under it’s control, it’s
likely to be quite hard to swing the spotlight upon the company’s
mis-deeds.
Microsoft’s PR firm is large, and they appear to do a lot when it
comes to damage control. One of the most recent ones is
unforgivable. Although it might be legal, it’s hardly arguable to
be moral. Microsoft’s PR firmstaged a phony
letter writing campaign to create letters to the editor in
support of the giant. The letters were to be sent to major trade
and press publications, timed to be released around courtroom
events. This is a rather “active” PR firm, to say the least. It’s
almost an information firewall of some kind, when you view it in
this light.
And then recently, I was enlightened a bit more on the subject.
I had some correspondence with an author who was reporting on a
related subject. Namely, he was noting that the press appears to be
finally putting out some of the truth in regards to the on-going
Anti-Trust trial. Mind you, he was speaking of the mainstream
press, TV reporters and such.
In case you have been living under a rock, the trial is going
really badly for Microsoft. A lot of people are amazed that this is
so, but I am not among them. Having followed Microsoft’s
monopolistic actions for years, I see that finally they have had to
take to the stand, and the truth is not pretty. Over the years they
have billed themselves as a competitive success story, at the cost
of this truth.
If they have been so successful, why do they need to cheat so
much? Before you criticize me for my words, go and read some of the
trial testimony. Don’t bother with the government’s witnesses, it
will bore you. I suggest that you simply read the things that
Microsoft’s own witnesses said when they were put on the stand.
Without much help, they alone make most of the points of the
government’s case.
My correspondence with the aforementioned journalist asked the
following question: Why does the press seem more afraid of
Microsoft than they do of the Government? This question comes from
my own contrast of the press following the Monica Lewinski scandal,
in comparison to what they have to say about Microsoft.
He explained it this way. The press is frequently much more
afraid of corporations, because they tend to have PR firms that
call up editors and make them nervous. It doesn’t take much
prodding apparently to do just that. And I’d be willing to wager a
bet that Microsoft PR people are very “active” on this front. I’m
not just speculating here, the author was very willing to state
that the moment reporters provided any coverage of the trial,
Microsoft was more than willing to call them up and point out
“errors” in their copy.
What does this have to do with Open Source Software?
This is from my correspondence with the author: “Remember the
quote–freedom of the press is for those who owns one?” The
government doesn’t buy many ads. One of the things journalists like
least are sources that threaten to call up their editors.”
Keep this in mind, I’ll return here shortly.
Microsoft has done very little to hide the fact that they wish
to own much of the digital landscape. It appears to put a burr in
their side when they don’t have control over major multimedia file
formats. Witness their attempts to get Apple to back down on the Quicktime
format. Microsoft wants to own the new standards for digital
communication, because if information is the next big commodity,
then information delivery vehicles are the next big market.
And also, they are part of the digital printing press.
And Microsoft doesn’t own that. The Internet is proving to be
very hard to “embrace and extend”. It’s impossible to own it, or
even control it for that matter. But the failed Microsoft Network
attempt proves that they tried to get a substantial portion of it.
MSN, had it taken off, would rival or more likely, surpass America
Online.
It can’t be proven, but it certainly appears that Microsoft
would like to own this digital printing press. There are many
reasons that motivate them, but I’d like to speculate on one of the
most damning. Own the press, and you can control the media.
The printed media has not always been friendly to Microsoft. But
possibly Microsoft simply bought enough ads in magazines, and they
came around.
Damage control was easier in the past. Microsoft may have more
than one reason to dislike the Internet, but they possibly dislike
it most because their grip on it is so weak. And likely their
frustration is further compounded by the fact that people are
getting more of their information from the Internet, and less from
printed media.
They had far more control of the press in the past, when
magazines were the primary news delivery source. Today, anybody can
have their home page linked to a major portal making a major news
story. And there goes any kind of control. It’s truly free press.
Fewer ads, less control. Worst of all, the writers that supply the
digital press feel hardly any pressure, if any at all, to conform
to Microsoft’s PR needs. They can look at major news issues, and
tell all. Anyone in the world is free to read the copy and find out
the bloody truth of the matter.
But the control is not always done with ad space.
As another example, examine Gateway‘s contribution to the
government’s case. Gateway came forward as one of the sole OEM’s to
tell about what was being done. The rest would only speak off the
record. And look at what happened to Gateway. Microsoft partners
are granted special privileges. They get to use a lot of Microsoft
software at free or near-free costs. Things like server products
and web browsers for example.
When
Gateway decided to use Netscape navigator, what did Microsoft
do? Gateway pays more for it’s Windows license. There were even
discussions, some might say threats, to audit their internal
software. Tell me if you don’t think that that sounds like control.
It’s one thing to complain about someone’s opinion. It’s another to
threaten them with monetary damages. And again, it could all be
viewed as legal. But it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s not
moral.
So, where does this lead? The press of tomorrow distributes it’s
data electronically. Operating systems are a big portion of that
distribution, and on the Internet, those operating systems are more
likely open systems than ones that Microsoft sells. Very few sites
are dependent upon Microsoft for web serving, and if they are, they
can switch to a free operating system. But Microsoft doesn’t like
it that way.
Looking at recent anti-trust problems, you can possibly see
another reason that they are in court. Today it’s much harder to do
damage control in the press. People get more of their news from
this digital medium, and it is increasingly less controlled by spin
doctors and ad purchases.
It also explains how damaging FUD* tactics are in the hands of a
monopolist. FUD tactics by anyone are bad, but if you own the
life-line to a company, such as a technical magazine, you can make
sure that your FUD remains where your competitors will be removed.
Microsoft will be buying ads next year, while a new company will
probably not withstand the heat.
It’s a major testament to Linux that it is even gaining momentum
in this climate of oppression. Of course, Microsoft willingly
admitted in the Halloween memos
that FUD won’t work against Linux. It is also a possibility that
the cost of the delivery medium is so much less that the heat felt
by Microsoft is lessened. A popular web site can be supported with
a few hundred dollars, oblivious to the costs of traditional
publishing. But the audience penetration is the same or larger. A
web site can reach far more people than traditional print
media.
And the Linux community is a vocal one. They complain when
discrepancies and inaccuracies are spotted. And that may be yet
another reason why the FUD is not working. As a member of Linux’s
unofficial PR firm, I feel we are generally far more technically
educated than Microsoft’s PR staff.
But I’m not resting on my haunches here. Take a look at what
I’ve said and ask what is going to ensure freedom in this new
digital age?
Often in conversation people say things to me indicating that
they think that we have benefitted from Microsoft and their
monopoly. They indicate that the world is a better place, because
Microsoft has created a “standard” with the Win32 API. They point
to the fact that most software conforms to that API, and since most
people have Windows on their computer, the world is a better place.
They worry that Linux will cause fragmentation in the computing
arena, and that without Microsoft to create standards, even by
cheating, the computing world today would be a chaotic place.
Maybe we would have a nicer world too, if it were flat.
Obviously, I can’t agree with that one. I have my own viewpoint.
It’s just pure speculation here, but I believe that true
competition will be beneficial to the computing world. Competition
in the sense that companies compete on the basis of quality, and
not shady business tactics. It is the capitalist in me, I just know
it.
But, suppose that things stay this way, and one monopolistic
company begins to gain ground again. Suppose that Linux begins to
get edged out by whatever. Suppose that some proprietary operating
system becomes the only way to compute in the future. This as
opposed to Linux, which is owned and controlled by no corporation
in particular.
Can we afford to let one company own the printing press of the
digital age?
Ask yourself. It’s not a hard question to answer.
* FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt – tactics that cause a
competing product to die because people think it will not be
supported by the industry.